|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 101
Appendix A
Major Shoreline Protection Measures
GENERAL MEASURES TAKEN
IN CAPE HATTERAS VICINITY
1 930
1966
1 967
1 969
One thousand feet (300 meters) of interlocking steel
sheet pile groins were installed along the beach.
The Civilian Conservation Corps built a major bar-
rier sand dune system along the entire length of
Hatteras Island.
Installation of additional sheet-pile groins.
Three hundred thousand cubic yards (230,000 cubic
meters) of sand was pumped from Pamlico Sound
onto the beach in front of Buxton, north of the
lighthouse.
A revetment of large nylon sand-filled bags was
placed in front of the lighthouse.
The U.S. Navy built three reinforced concrete
groins to protect the U.S. Navy facility and the
lighthouse.
Data from MTMA
Engineers, 1985.
Associates, 1980; U.S. Army Corps of
101
OCR for page 102
102
A ppend ix A
1971 Two hundred thousand cubic yards ( 150,000 cubic
meters) of sand was dredged from a borrow pit at
Cape Hatteras to beach at Buxton Motel area.
1973 Beach nourishment again was undertaken; 1,250,000
cubic yards (960,000 cubic meters) of sand was
dredged from a pit at Cape Hatteras to the beach
north of the U.S. Navy facility.
1974 Major repairs made to the 1969 groins.
1980 Emergency measures were implemented to protect
the lighthouse foundation. These included a land
ward sheetpile extension of the lighthouse groin and
emplacement of rubble riprap at the foot of this
extension.
1981 Offshore artificial seagrass was installed.
1982 More extensive artificial seagrass was installed.
1982 Seven hundred sandbags were placed around the
base of the lighthouse.
1983 A protective scour-mat apron was installed at the
toe (landward end) of the lighthouse groin.
1984 A third, even larger installation of artificial sea
grass was implemented.
THE NPS DECISION PROCESS
AND THE VALUE OF OPEN PLANNING
Since 1980, the National Park Service has sought a long-
term, technologically feasible, and cost-effective solution to
the problem of preserving Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. In the
process, it has shifted its focus from piecemeal stopgaps to
larger-scale, more permanent options. Numerous federal,
state, and private entities have participated in the quest.
The documentary legacy of this process has been prodigious,
including professional studies, workshop reports, interagency
OCR for page 103
Shoreline Protection Measures
103
communication ant! agreements, resolutions, permits, and
appropriations.
NPS diligently undertook efforts to obtain a diversity of
opinions and expertise. On July 29, 1982, on the basis of an
environmental assessment, NPS announced its preference for
the seawall/revetment option. This was adopted as a final
decision on November 26, 1985; Congress appropriated
$4,070,000 to preserve the lighthouse October 30, 1986 (H.S.
Res. 738, P.L. 99-591).
The relocation option initially was discussed by MTMA
Associates ( 1980) report and briefly in the environmental
assessment (U.S. National Park Service, 1982~. After the
April 1, 1982, NPS workshop at Manteo, North Carolina, relo-
cation was dropped from further consideration in favor of
the seawall/revetment. New information from various sources
provided the impetus to reexamine the various options, and
the desire to reexamine the options led to the formation of
this committee. NPS is to be commended for its willingness
to reconsider its earlier decision. The value of public input
to agency decision-making, although time-consuming and even
abrasive at times, is thus demonstrated.
ACTIONS TO PROTECT
CAPE HATTERAS LIGHTHOUSE SINCE 1980
October 28. 1980
Emergency protective measures for Cape Hatteras Lighthouse
were initiated after a severe storm in March 1980. The
storm destroyed the ruins of the original lighthouse and
flanked the beach anchor point of the southern groin (near-
est the current lighthouse). This allowed storm-driven or
high-tide waves to flow between the steel and concrete jetty
and the softer sand dunes and erode sand. The protective
measures included:
Placing rubble at the base of the eroding escarpment
nearest the lighthouse.
Extending the southern groin 150 feet (45.72 meters)
landward.
OCR for page 104
104
A ppend ix A
· Placing additional sandbags.
Six to 24 months of protection were expected, during which
alternative long-term protective measures were to be evalua-
ted' a course of action selected, and funding for implementa-
tion obtained.
December 2. 1980
NPS presented five options to preserve the lighthouse for 100
years (MTMA Associates, 1980~:
Relocation
Full revetment
Partial revetment and groinfield with beach nourish-
ment
Groinfield rehabilitation with beach nourishment
Beach nourishment
March 5. 1981
After evaluating the options, the North Carolina Coastal
Resources Commission determined that moving the lighthouse
was the approach most consistent with state guidelines. The
approach preferred next was seawall construction (Benson,
1981~.
Mav 5. 1981
Five hundred units of artificial seagrass were installed in
front of the lighthouse as a demonstration project by the
manufacturer. This probably why not effective in building up
the beach (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984~.
JUIY 15. 1981
A letter from NPS was sent to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers requesting assistance in developing a long-term
(30-50 year) protection plan (Baker, 1981~.
December 16. 1981
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed analyses of two
protection alternatives: a stabilization scheme involving con-
struction of four inshore breakwaters and a southern terminal
groin, and construction of a seawall/revetment (Hughes,
1981~.
OCR for page 105
Shoreline Protection Measures
January 18. 1982
The North Carolina Department
Community Develooment pointed
105
of Natural Resources and
~ out to NPS that the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers review only addressed alternatives
within its purview to execute and urged NPS to develop com-
parable information on other alternatives (Flourney, 1982~.
Auril 1~ 1982
NPS held a workshop in Manteo, NC, to obtain public input
on how to protect the lighthouse. The workshop conclusions
were that:
.
The proposals were difficult to evaluate because of the
range in quality and detail. NPS should develop selec-
tion criteria and ask again for public input.
Given the three NPS constraints--saving the lighthouse,
a permanent solution, and no major recurring costs--
short-term interim protective measures would be
needed. A basal revetment was favored as the long-
term solution.
Relocation was opposed because it addressed only
, safety of
the lighthouse and not the problem of shoreline erosion. The
MTMA feasibility study was not considered reliable. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers proposed another feasibility study.
~ ~ ~,
· · ~.
May 31. 1982
A study by Lee Wan & Associates, Inc. was completed for
NPS (Lee Wan & Associates, 1982~.
July 29. 1982
NPS issued an environmental assessment and requested com-
ments by August 31, 1982. NPS also proposed seawall/
revetment as the preferred alternative (National Park Service,
1 982~.
August 27. 1982
The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission passed a
resolution supporting the NPS preferred alternative to build a
seawall, based on the NPS environmental assessment and dis-
cussions with NPS personnel, which indicated potential prob
OCR for page 106
106
Appendix A
lems with moving the lighthouse (Chesson, 1982~. Commis-
sion staff were informed that "the lighthouse is a double-
walled structure which makes a moving alternative particu-
larly difficult and hazardous to the structure" (Benson, 1982~.
In a memo accompanying the resolution, relocation was ruled
out on the basis of projected cost and time efficiency (Wil-
lett, 1982~. The commission indicated that final plans would
be reviewed for consistency with state plans, as required
under federal law (Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972~.
September 13. 1982
NPS designated funds to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
for protection work, including testing at the Waterways
Experiment Station and monitoring the seagrass to determine
its effectiveness as an interim measure (Guse, 1982~.
September and October. 1982
Additional artificial seagrass was installed (U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 1984~.
JU1Y 1984
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed Report on Gen-
eraltizedt Monitoring of Seascape Installation at Cape Hatteras
Lighthouse, North Carolina (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1 984~.
Octobers 1984
More artificial seagrass was installed (Rogers, 1986).
April 9. 1985
NPS requested a declaratory ruling from The North Carolina
Coastal Resources Commision on the consistency of the sea-
wall with the state coastal management program. The com-
mission held that relocation and beach nourishment were pre-
ferred under the coastal management regulations ~ 15 NCAC
7H .0308(a)(1)] but concluded that a seawall was consistent
with state policy, because there would be no adverse effect
on marine productivity, it would allow natural erosion pro-
cesses to continue, there would be no adverse effect on
adjacent property, and there was a "clear statement of need
for structural rather than nonstructural erosion control meth-
ods." The seawall plan also was consistent with the Dare
OCR for page 107
Shoreline Protection Measures
107
County Land Use Plan (North Carolina Coastal Resources
Commission, 1985.)
JU1Y 3. 1985
The Department of the Army (DOA) issued a public notice
that NPS applied for a permit under section 404(b) of the
Clean Water Act to place fill material in the Atlantic for
long-term shoreline protection in conjunction with the sea-
wall plan. Approval of the DOA permit hinged on required
state and local permits and authorizations, which include:
Water quality certification (Clean Water Act Section
401 ~ from the NC Division of Environmental Manage-
ment
Issuance of a dredge/fill permit from NC Division of
Coastal Management [NC General Statute 113-229]
State permit (unspecified type) from NC Division of
Coastal Management or its delegates
Easement to fill or occupy state-owned submerged land
(NC General Statute 143-341~4), 146-6, 146-11, and 146-
12) from NC Department of Administration and NC
Council of State
Submission of Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
to Land Quality Section, Division of Land Resources
(State Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NC
General Statute 113 A-50-66 (Warren, 1985~.
Sentember 9. 1985
A letter from the North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers commented on the public notice and con-
curred that the project was consistent with the North Caro-
lina Coastal Management Program, providing that temporary
material and debris were removed at completion. The letter
also requested that NPS contact the following offices 2
weeks before beginning the project to ensure that critical
fisheries resources and turtle-nesting activities would not be
affected adversely:
. . . .
-
OCR for page 108
108
A ppend ix A
Mr. Paul Raymond, National Marine Fisheries Endan-
gered Species Branch (813~893-3366
Mr. John Friddel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office
of Endangered Species (704~259-0321
Mr. Harrell Johnson, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
(919~338-1558 (Rhodes, 1985~.
According to Mr. Hugh Heine at DOA, the necessary authori-
zations (listed above) were obtained, and a permit was issued
(personal communication, November 4, 1987~.
Novembers 1985
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed Seawall and
Revetment Design for Long-Term Protection of the Cape
Hatteras Lighthouse, N.C. for NPS (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1985~.
November 26
NPS announced selection of the seawall revetment alternative
and found no significant impact (NPS, 1985b).
March 1 986
A comprehensive structural analysis was completed by Has-
brouck Hunderman Architects et al. for NPS (Hasbrouck Hun-
derman Architects et al., 1986b).
JU1Y. 1986
~ comprehensive preservation program was completed by Has-
brouck Hunderman Architects et al. for NPS. (Vertical
cracks were found in interior masonry wall.) (Hasbrouck
Hunderman Architects et al., 1986a.)
August 17 1986
Dr. Orrin Pilkey of Duke University claimed a wall would
seal the fate of the lighthouse, because it would enhance
erosion, ensuring that the lighthouse eventually would fall
(Minehart, 1986~.
OCR for page 109
Shoreline Protection Measures
December 29~ 1986
A letter from the Move the Lighthouse Committee to Secre-
tary of the Interior Donald Hodel requested a review of the
decision-making process that led to selection of the seawall/
revetment option for saving Cape Hatteras Lighthouse (Fis-
chetti, 1986).
109
Februarv. 1987
The Move the Lighthouse Committee released Move It or
Lose It: The Case for Relocation of the Cape Hatteras
Lighthouse (Fischetti et al., 1987~.
March(?!~ 1987
Limberios Vallianos, coastal engineer with the Army Corps of
Engineers, replied to the Move the Lighthouse Committee
report (Vallianos, 1987~.
Aoril 10~ 1987
Charles Thomas (former chief engineer on Admiral Hyman
Rickover's engineering staff) advised Tom Hartman, superin-
tendent, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, that "the risks of
catastrophic structural failure of the lighthouse are so great
that relocation must not be attempted" (Thomas, 1987~.
June. 1 987
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Move the Light-
house commented to NPS on the work statement for assess-
ment of the lighthouse preservation options. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers recommended an engineering/cost study of
the relocation option comparable to the analysis done for
revetment. (Vithalani, 1987; Fischetti, 1987.)
Aprils 1 987
NPS requested that the National Academy of Sciences evalu-
ate the options (U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Park Service, 1987~.
OCR for page 110
Representative terms from entire chapter:
cape hatteras
